8 ms·

Likewise, having a cell phone is a privilege, not a right, but it's nearly impossible to survive in modernity without one, so restricting access to one becomes

by tedks 12y ago

Likewise, having a cell phone is a privilege, not a right, but it's nearly impossible to survive in modernity without one, so restricting access to one becomes a form of coercion. No matter how you spin it, this is an attempt to coerce people into incriminating themselves. There's nothing stopping these states from going further and saying that driving a car implies consent to have that car searched at any time, or impounded to be emissions-checked at the state's leisure.

tptacek 12y ago
Having a cell phone is a privilege? In what state, owing to what statute?
- vertex-four 12y ago
  > Having a cell phone is a privilege? The ownership of a physical phone is not; having service for that phone involves a voluntary transaction that may be denied, and is therefore a privilege.
  - seanflyon 12y ago
    It is a voluntary transaction between 2 private parties. Either party can deny that transaction, but the government stepping in and preventing the transaction seems like a very different thing. I suppose some would say it's part of thew government's right to regulate interstate commerce.
    - tedks 12y ago
      Well, the government owns the radio spectrum that the communication goes over, so it's more direct than that.
      - kasey_junk 12y ago
        "owns" in this sentence is problematic. It is a highly technical discussion so it is probably best not to dwell on it. But the government regulates the radio spectrum on behalf of the public, who own it.
        tedks 12y ago
        "The public" is an abstract concept. If you try to use radio spectrum in ways the government dislikes, it will stop you with violence, so they own it for all intents and purposes.
        kasey_junk 12y ago
        For that matter, the "government" is an abstract concept. So what? The point is, the "government" doesn't own anything. They regulate it. That is completely different than ownership, and in the case of radio spectrum the very concept of ownership is really hard to even reason about it.
        vertex-four 12y ago
        What is ownership of a piece of land, precisely, then, and how does it differ from ownership of the radio spectrum? My understanding is that ownership of a piece of land simply means that you'll (or a proxy, whether private entity or Government, will) use violence (or threaten it) to keep other people from using it without your permission.
        kasey_junk 12y ago
        1) That is a very loose definition of ownership. For instance, I can threaten my next door neighbor to take over his deed. That doesn't make me the owner of the land. Ownership of anything is a social construct, without which the greatest warlord wins. 2) Even given the social construct of ownership, the enforcer of the social construct is not the "owner". If I pay a private security firm to guard my property, most people don't assume I've ceded ownership to them. 3) Even given those narrow definitions, the radio spectrum is much more nuanced than physical property. Radio waves literally travel around the world. I as a property owner can enact physical boundaries that have a fair chance of preventing trespass and providing an uninformed arbitrator to make a decent decision. When it comes to radio frequency, even the act of trespass is a highly technical and subjective topic.
- rabid_fish 12y ago
  I have family that have been restricted from internet use. This includes the use of most cellphones. Makes it hard to get or maintain a job.
  - seanflyon 12y ago
    Restricted why? They are allowed to take away rights as punishment for a crime.
- tedks 12y ago
  It's certainly regulatable, though it isn't now. Since cell carriers lease public airwaves, it'd be possible to mandate that they block some people from using their service, only sell phones if the person's ID is checked, etc.. This is drastic and would disrupt (in the traditional sense of the word) pay as you go phones that are popular for various demographics, but it seems possible, and there certainly isn't a reason why it couldn't happen. If felons can be denied the right to vote, I think it'd be an easy sell to deny them the right to cell phones. Any state could pass it as a "tough on crime" measure.
  - ganeumann 12y ago
    NY's Senator Schumer tried to pass a law that made anonymous prepaid cellphones illegal in 2010 (http://www.schumer.senate.gov/new_website/record.cfm?id=325263 http://www.schumer.senate.gov/new_website/record.cfm?id=3252...). While this bill seems to have quietly died, it shows that it is certainly possible.
  - tptacek 12y ago
    It's not true that anything one can imagine being regulated can legally be regulated. The state has an extremely compelling interest in regulating automobiles --- they are incredibly dangerous and create externalities. It is harder to see how a restriction on free speech and association could pass Constitutional muster.
    - tedks 12y ago
      There's no free speech or association here, only questions of who can access government-controlled radio spectrum. This is also incredibly dangerous -- nearly all drug trafficking is orchestrated via cellular networks, and it's not a stretch to imagine that felons might lose the right to use government radio spectrum to communicate in the same way they lose the right to vote in many states. To put it another way, which seems more of a central right in the democratic system: voting, or controlled frequency access? It seems very quixotic to make this an issue of free speech, when free speech itself is so highly regulated. Ask the protesters outside the free speech zone if free speech exists beyond state regulation -- the silence is your answer.

by tedks 12y ago

tptacek 12y ago

Having a cell phone is a privilege? In what state, owing to what statute?

vertex-four 12y ago
> Having a cell phone is a privilege? The ownership of a physical phone is not; having service for that phone involves a voluntary transaction that may be denied, and is therefore a privilege.
- seanflyon 12y ago
  It is a voluntary transaction between 2 private parties. Either party can deny that transaction, but the government stepping in and preventing the transaction seems like a very different thing. I suppose some would say it's part of thew government's right to regulate interstate commerce.
  - tedks 12y ago
    Well, the government owns the radio spectrum that the communication goes over, so it's more direct than that.
    - kasey_junk 12y ago
      "owns" in this sentence is problematic. It is a highly technical discussion so it is probably best not to dwell on it. But the government regulates the radio spectrum on behalf of the public, who own it.
      - tedks 12y ago
        "The public" is an abstract concept. If you try to use radio spectrum in ways the government dislikes, it will stop you with violence, so they own it for all intents and purposes.
        kasey_junk 12y ago
        For that matter, the "government" is an abstract concept. So what? The point is, the "government" doesn't own anything. They regulate it. That is completely different than ownership, and in the case of radio spectrum the very concept of ownership is really hard to even reason about it.
        vertex-four 12y ago
        What is ownership of a piece of land, precisely, then, and how does it differ from ownership of the radio spectrum? My understanding is that ownership of a piece of land simply means that you'll (or a proxy, whether private entity or Government, will) use violence (or threaten it) to keep other people from using it without your permission.
        kasey_junk 12y ago
        1) That is a very loose definition of ownership. For instance, I can threaten my next door neighbor to take over his deed. That doesn't make me the owner of the land. Ownership of anything is a social construct, without which the greatest warlord wins. 2) Even given the social construct of ownership, the enforcer of the social construct is not the "owner". If I pay a private security firm to guard my property, most people don't assume I've ceded ownership to them. 3) Even given those narrow definitions, the radio spectrum is much more nuanced than physical property. Radio waves literally travel around the world. I as a property owner can enact physical boundaries that have a fair chance of preventing trespass and providing an uninformed arbitrator to make a decent decision. When it comes to radio frequency, even the act of trespass is a highly technical and subjective topic.
rabid_fish 12y ago
I have family that have been restricted from internet use. This includes the use of most cellphones. Makes it hard to get or maintain a job.
- seanflyon 12y ago
  Restricted why? They are allowed to take away rights as punishment for a crime.
tedks 12y ago
It's certainly regulatable, though it isn't now. Since cell carriers lease public airwaves, it'd be possible to mandate that they block some people from using their service, only sell phones if the person's ID is checked, etc.. This is drastic and would disrupt (in the traditional sense of the word) pay as you go phones that are popular for various demographics, but it seems possible, and there certainly isn't a reason why it couldn't happen. If felons can be denied the right to vote, I think it'd be an easy sell to deny them the right to cell phones. Any state could pass it as a "tough on crime" measure.
- ganeumann 12y ago
  NY's Senator Schumer tried to pass a law that made anonymous prepaid cellphones illegal in 2010 (http://www.schumer.senate.gov/new_website/record.cfm?id=325263 http://www.schumer.senate.gov/new_website/record.cfm?id=3252...). While this bill seems to have quietly died, it shows that it is certainly possible.
- tptacek 12y ago
  It's not true that anything one can imagine being regulated can legally be regulated. The state has an extremely compelling interest in regulating automobiles --- they are incredibly dangerous and create externalities. It is harder to see how a restriction on free speech and association could pass Constitutional muster.
  - tedks 12y ago
    There's no free speech or association here, only questions of who can access government-controlled radio spectrum. This is also incredibly dangerous -- nearly all drug trafficking is orchestrated via cellular networks, and it's not a stretch to imagine that felons might lose the right to use government radio spectrum to communicate in the same way they lose the right to vote in many states. To put it another way, which seems more of a central right in the democratic system: voting, or controlled frequency access? It seems very quixotic to make this an issue of free speech, when free speech itself is so highly regulated. Ask the protesters outside the free speech zone if free speech exists beyond state regulation -- the silence is your answer.